Insights

Spanking Verdict Tossed Out

Only in California. The California Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed a $1.7 million jury verdict in favor of a woman who had been spanked at work as part of a “motivational exercise.” Here is the opinion. (Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc.) The court recounted the following facts: “Most of the employees […]

Only in California. The California Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, reversed a $1.7 million jury verdict in favor of a woman who had been spanked at work as part of a “motivational exercise.”

“Most of the employees in the Fresno office were 18 to 25 years old; plaintiff was 52 years old. Every morning, before the teams went out to sell, there would be a meeting of the field supervisors and a meeting of the salespersons. At the latter, a field supervisor would lead the meeting; the salespersons were given training and motivated to go out and sell alarm systems door-to-door. The meetings had a pep rally atmosphere, with yelling, chanting, and cheering. At other offices of Alarm One, the motivational techniques used at the meetings included bonuses, singing in front of the group, pies in the face, eating baby food, wearing diapers, and spanking. Some of these techniques, including spanking with an Alarm One sign or a competitor’s sign, were imported to the Fresno office, which opened in July 2003. Employees would be spanked for arriving late at a meeting or for losing a sales competition.

Respondent was spanked a few times while she worked for Alarm One. January 14, 2004, was the last date on which she was spanked; Jessica Dakin and three others were also spanked at the same meeting. Afterward, Dakin complained that she had been injured; she had sustained a cut and a bruise from the spanking. She filled out an injury report and was taken to a doctor. After Dakin’s complaint, meetings were held with the supervisors and the sales staff; everyone was informed that the spankings were unacceptable. The spankings stopped.”

The court reversed because the jury instructions did not tell the jury that “in order for plaintiff to prevail, she had to prove she was exposed to a hostile work environment because she was a woman.” The employer made a creative argument on this issue, given that the spanking had apparently taken place:

“As we understand it, appellant’s argument is not that it spanked both males and females, so there was no actionable harassment based on sex because it harassed males and females equally. Rather, the argument is that the spanking was not based on sex, but on a misguided notion that spanking employees who performed poorly (by arriving at work late or not selling enough product) in front of their peers would motivate them (or all of the employees) to perform better. Therefore, the argument goes, there was no harassment of either sex.”

The plaintiff contended that there was sufficient evidence of gender-based harassment because one witness testified that that “[w]hen a guy was spanked they’d be just, like, get up there. Get it over with, you know. And when a girl was spanked – bend over, let me see that ass. Spank that bitch. Slap that ho. Things of that nature.” The court found that there was a conflict in the evidence on whether the harassment was because of the plaintiff’s sex and therefore the failure to instruct the jury on the proper legal standard, i.e. that the harassment must be based on gender, required reversal.

The jury had awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

Related

Insights from

Welter Law Firm, P.C.

Welter Insights is a comprehensive national employment law and litigation blog covering recent court decisions, new legislation, active cases and emerging issues at the local, state and federal levels. The articles, written by Welter attorneys, provide actionable insights into the rapidly evolving world of employment and workplace law.

Author

Welter Law Firm, P.C. is an award-winning law firm providing comprehensive counsel and complex advocacy on employment law and employment litigation matters nationwide from offices in Washington, D.C. (Northern Virginia) and Austin, TX.

The information provided on this website is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals depicted in images on this website include both attorney and non-attorney employees of Welter Law Firm, P.C., including paralegals, finance and administrative personnel. To see a photo directory of the firm’s attorneys, please visit www.welterlaw.com/people. All or portions of this website may constitute attorney advertising in some jurisdictions and should be viewed as such where applicable.